Wikipedia:Peer review/Flag of Portugal/archive1

Flag of Portugal edit

I recently contributed to this article with a major expansion on its encyclopedical and visual contents. Some images, like this and this, I have even created myself from pre-existing ones on Commons. I would appreciate comments and suggestions on how to further improve the whole article and make it a reliable candidate for featured status. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe get rid of some of the red links in the article, especially at the lead section, and this article looks good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can unlink the last two names, except Abel Botelho, because I can create a stub for it, since there is an article about him on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. Comprehensive, yet a good length. Nice to have images of all the different versions of the flag (though I must admit I didn't go through and check the licensing). I see from your user page that English is not your first language; I've gone through and tided up the English, though I don't claim it is now perfect :) There are still some things which need rephrasing - epopee and comotioned are not in common English usage; the translation of the remarks by the commission about the symbolism of the colours also reads somewhat oddly to the English ear. There were a few [external links] in the text which I converted to footnotes. I removed the comment about the current flag not being heraldically correct; the rule of tincture only applies when you have a charge of one colour on top of another colour; divisions of the field are considered to be beside each other. In general dates which only consist of a year should not be linked, so I have removed most such links. There are a number of statements and/or paragraphs which don't have any cited sources, this should be addressed. --Dr pda 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you. I tried to mention all possible and important aspects of the subject without extending the article beyond the necessary (it's 42kb, as of now), as required to become a perfect article. The majority of the photos and flag images already existed and are under a usable licenses (PD or that CC-thing; no fair-use), I only created two more from one of them (the construction sheet and military flag). Indeed, English is my 2nd language and I think I'm a good writer of it but, as I'm not native speaker, there are always many grammar and syntax errors that English-speaking reviewers pick up faster. The uncommon words have been changed and I tried my best to make the commission remarks sound better, while maintaining the original translation. As for the rule of tincture - you're so right! I didn't pick that info at all, thanks for correcting. About the unsourced statements/paragraphs, I've tried to figure them out; could you point any specific? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding unsourced statements/paragraphs, the following seem to need a reference:
- Paragraph beginning Adding to the sphere's significance
  - Removed pillories reference.
- ~~Paragraph beginning Resting on top of the armillary sphere, particularly the claim to be one of the oldest national symbols~~
  - Copy-edited and added source.
- ~~First paragraph under 1095-1248, particularly Henry of Burgundy receiving the County of Portugal. (Also, two paragraphs later it is not clear whether Sancho is inheriting a shield or a banner)~~
  - I'm not a heraldry expert so I might use unknowingly several terms which may have distinct heraldic meaning.
- ~~Source needed for Afonso II and Sancho II's use of the same banner as Sancho I~~
  - Added ref tag for "flag history" page where it lists the monarchs which used it.
- 1248-1495 - first paragraph should have source for majority of reconstructions display 16 castles
  - Removed; it was a unsourced personal statement.
- ~~(1495 - 1667, 3rd paragraph ends with an external link, which should be made into a footnote)~~
  - Footnoted.
- ~~1667 - 1830, end of first paragraph, should have a source for same flag being used for whole absolutist period~~
  - Moved previous ref tag to end of paragraph: it says there the flag was used by those monarchs.
- ~~1830 - 1910 first and paragraphs are unsourced~~
  - Added source. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments
- Why was the first decree establishing the flag not legal, and what exactly is the diploma being talked about here?
  - Your misunderstanding is caused by my inaccurate translation. I already copy-edited that paragraph so that it really transmits what the source states.
- Why is the Flag Day on 1 December not celebrated, and why are there Flag Days on Jan 31 and Oct 5?
  - Well, it just isn't, at least with that name - the most similar day is Portugal Day, on June 10. However, December 1 is still national holiday but celebrates only the Restoration of the Independence. Should I remove that "(currently not celebrated)" then? January 31 and October 5 are not Flag Days...
- I still don't understand the Portuguese sparkled the redeeming lightning of dawn --Dr pda 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is an expression very hard to translate into common English; it's written to sound very lyrical. It's a direct citation so I don't know if I should change the translation just to sound better in English. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]